非法词条:早期英语词典中的鸡奸、鸡奸和性规范的建构

Q2 Arts and Humanities Dictionaries Pub Date : 2019-07-31 DOI:10.1353/DIC.2019.0009
S. Turton
{"title":"非法词条:早期英语词典中的鸡奸、鸡奸和性规范的建构","authors":"S. Turton","doi":"10.1353/DIC.2019.0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:Historians of sexuality have regularly called attention to the construction of same-sex intercourse as an “unnameable crime” in early modern England. When the crime was named, its most common signifiers in English were buggery and sodomy. However, the precise meanings of these words fluctuated from text to text, so that each term came to represent an “utterly confused category,” in Foucault’s (1978, 101) famous phrase. This article considers the problems of inexpressibility and ambiguity posed by buggery and sodomy for the writers of hard-word and general English dictionaries from 1604 to 1754. It explores how definitions of these terms, as well as of such non-normative acts as fornication and incest, explicitly circumscribed the boundaries of lawful sexual behavior and implicitly constructed a prescribed sexual model within those bounds: procreative, marital, monogamous. Yet, unlike deviant opposite-sex acts, same-sex intercourse was rendered not only illegal but incoherent, as the terms used to explain it—copulation, to couple—were in turn defined in ways that precluded the possibility of any intercourse that was not between the sexes. Nevertheless, the silences and paradoxes embedded in these early definitions allow them to be read from perspectives that are more radical than their writers likely intended.","PeriodicalId":35106,"journal":{"name":"Dictionaries","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/DIC.2019.0009","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unlawful Entries: Buggery, Sodomy, and the Construction of Sexual Normativity in Early English Dictionaries\",\"authors\":\"S. Turton\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/DIC.2019.0009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT:Historians of sexuality have regularly called attention to the construction of same-sex intercourse as an “unnameable crime” in early modern England. When the crime was named, its most common signifiers in English were buggery and sodomy. However, the precise meanings of these words fluctuated from text to text, so that each term came to represent an “utterly confused category,” in Foucault’s (1978, 101) famous phrase. This article considers the problems of inexpressibility and ambiguity posed by buggery and sodomy for the writers of hard-word and general English dictionaries from 1604 to 1754. It explores how definitions of these terms, as well as of such non-normative acts as fornication and incest, explicitly circumscribed the boundaries of lawful sexual behavior and implicitly constructed a prescribed sexual model within those bounds: procreative, marital, monogamous. Yet, unlike deviant opposite-sex acts, same-sex intercourse was rendered not only illegal but incoherent, as the terms used to explain it—copulation, to couple—were in turn defined in ways that precluded the possibility of any intercourse that was not between the sexes. Nevertheless, the silences and paradoxes embedded in these early definitions allow them to be read from perspectives that are more radical than their writers likely intended.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35106,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dictionaries\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/DIC.2019.0009\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dictionaries\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/DIC.2019.0009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dictionaries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/DIC.2019.0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

摘要:在近代早期的英国,性历史学家们经常将同性性交视为一种“不可名状的犯罪”。当罪行被命名时,它在英语中最常见的能指是肛交和鸡奸。然而,这些词的确切含义因文本而异,因此在福柯(1978,101)的名言中,每个术语都代表了一个“完全混乱的类别”。本文论述了1604-1754年间,英语硬词词典和普通英语词典的编纂者们所面临的由肛交和鸡奸引起的不可表达性和歧义性问题。它探讨了这些术语以及通奸和乱伦等非规范行为的定义如何明确界定合法性行为的界限,并在这些界限内隐含地构建了一个规定的性模式:生育、婚姻、一夫一妻制。然而,与越轨的异性行为不同,同性性交不仅被认为是非法的,而且是不连贯的,因为用来解释它的术语——对伴侣的性交——反过来又被定义为排除了任何非两性性交的可能性。尽管如此,这些早期定义中的沉默和悖论使人们能够从比作者可能想要的更激进的角度来解读它们。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Unlawful Entries: Buggery, Sodomy, and the Construction of Sexual Normativity in Early English Dictionaries
ABSTRACT:Historians of sexuality have regularly called attention to the construction of same-sex intercourse as an “unnameable crime” in early modern England. When the crime was named, its most common signifiers in English were buggery and sodomy. However, the precise meanings of these words fluctuated from text to text, so that each term came to represent an “utterly confused category,” in Foucault’s (1978, 101) famous phrase. This article considers the problems of inexpressibility and ambiguity posed by buggery and sodomy for the writers of hard-word and general English dictionaries from 1604 to 1754. It explores how definitions of these terms, as well as of such non-normative acts as fornication and incest, explicitly circumscribed the boundaries of lawful sexual behavior and implicitly constructed a prescribed sexual model within those bounds: procreative, marital, monogamous. Yet, unlike deviant opposite-sex acts, same-sex intercourse was rendered not only illegal but incoherent, as the terms used to explain it—copulation, to couple—were in turn defined in ways that precluded the possibility of any intercourse that was not between the sexes. Nevertheless, the silences and paradoxes embedded in these early definitions allow them to be read from perspectives that are more radical than their writers likely intended.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Dictionaries
Dictionaries Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊最新文献
Compiling The Oxford Dictionary of African American English: A Progress Report E. Ward Gilman: In Memoriam Editorial The Velar Nasal in thing and think: Evidence from Thomas Spence's (1775) Pronouncing Dictionary for the Eighteenth-Century English Phonology Database What is new in EDD Online 4.0?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1